irrelevant appeal to tradition

The irrelevant appeal
to tradition is a fallacy in reasoning in which one argues that
a practice or a belief is justifiable simply because it has a
long and established history. A recent example of this fallacy
occurred in an article by Valerie Reiss on how to choose a
psychic:

Christianity sees
divination as
going against the Bible's mandate not to seek "soothsayers,"
because that would be expressing a lack of faith in God [sic] as
omnipotent and all-knowing. Yet many ... of the world's
religions and cultures have woven it into their fiber--Hinduism
uses Vedic astrology to match marriage partners; in Chinese
culture, an expert is consulted on the most mundane to crucial
life matters--from when to get married to where to live. Wanting
to know what will happen is not just a result of our modern
brains grasping for control and answers; it's been the human
condition for millennia, people have been seeking prophecies
since Greeks took often long journeys to consult the
Oracle at
Delphi. ("5
Things to Know Before Going to a 'Psychic'")

Reiss argues that
since divination has been practiced for millennia in various
cultures, it must be good despite what some Christians might say
is forbidden by the Bible. The fact
that some cultures have been engaging in
magical
and
superstitious thinking for thousands of years does not
justify the practice, any more than thousands of years of
slavery or abuse of women would justify those practices. Humans
have been beating each other to death in boxing matches for
millennia, but that hardly justifies the practice.

The fact that Vedic
astrology is still practiced in Hinduism isn't a good reason for
thinking that this is a good thing. In fact,
it's a bad
thing. There is no compelling evidence that any kind of
astrology is useful for divining the
future, and the belief in this superstition is an open door to
fraud and corruption in India (see
Guru Busters
for an example of one of the corrupt godmen astrologers who asks
his followers on national television to kill those who exposed
his scam). Ms. Reiss might consider how she would feel if her
marriage was arranged by an astrologer. There might be a better
way.

Reiss doesn't mention
what experts are consulted in Chinese culture, but it is
apparent that she is referring to various kinds of soothsayers.
These "experts" bank on the ignorance and superstition of their
clients. Perhaps one doesn't need any kind of expert to advise
them on when to get married or where to live.

Surely Ms. Reiss is
not advising 21st century people to return to
the ways of the ancient Greeks. I doubt if too many modern
Greeks consult temple
oracles for
advice on anything, but if they did they might consider that
there are much better ways of getting information about the
future. A bit of knowledge has been gained in the past several
thousand years. Using that knowledge to reason inductively
about the future, guided by techniques that have been refined
over many centuries, has proven to be vastly superior to any
form of divination provided by
psychics,
intuitives,
or other soothsayers.

The number of years
that something has been practiced, in itself, does not justify
that practice. The fact that magical thinking persists in many
areas of modern life does not mean that magical thinking is
superior to other methods. Rather than be guided by the inferior
methods of our ancestors, we would be better off if we tried to
understand why these primordial ways of evaluating experience
persist and what we might do to overcome the tendency to think
like our ignorant predecessors. Rather than rejoicing in ancient
errors, we might do better to train ourselves in ways of
overcoming our tendencies to fallacious thinking.

Finally, one wonders
why Ms. Reiss doesn't see that even though the Christians base
their aversion to soothsaying on an
appeal to authority, their counter-tradition nullifies her
appeal to tradition. Or is Ms. Reiss arguing that three
traditions trump one tradition? If she is, she's also
committing the
ad populum fallacy.